In the first post-Waxman-hearing commentary up at Fire Dog Lake (for which I guest post), Jane Hamsher stated the following (emphases mine):

Toensing’s testimony was rife with what could charitably be considered “inaccuracies.” She claimed knowledge of Plame’s status she freely admitted she could not have had, having not spoken to either the CIA nor Plame on the topic, and she also claimed that Grenier had given her name as Valerie Plame (he hadn’t). Waxman seemed to be aware of this as he closed out the proceedings, thanking the administration’s spokesman (and ComPost contributor) for her time, promising that her statements would be fact checked. I’m sure Marcy will be doing much the same here tonight.

And frequent DKos diarist and FDL commenter litigatormom has her own commentary over at Daily Kos on why Victoria Toensing is not just a bad liar, but a bad lawyer as well.

It was fun watching Toensing blanch when Waxman told her that her testimony would be fact-checked. Waxman made it perfectly clear that he had no time for her nonsense, then gave her a final, elegant stab to let her evade being brought up on perjury charges — if she was willing to “correct” her lies. Now she’s caught between two fires: Admit she lied, or face perjury charges.

It’s fascinating that something that was nearly as big news as the hearing itself would be all but ignored by the mainstream press. Yet the accounts I’ve seen barely mention Toensing’s presence, much less her lying under oath.

I would bet you’d have to wait, MEC. There haven’t been prosecutions for lying to Congress since forever, and has almost always been used on high-level government officials, not political operatives.

Granted, since 2001, the Pubbies have ensured there will be no prosecutions by being careful not to swear in the liars or ask questions that would require a lie. Still, even under Clinton, when they were trying hard, I don’t think there were any prosecutions.

“General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today’s hearing. During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

“At the time of the publication of Robert Novak’s column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information.”

By the way, I see you use the same WordPress theme as me and you have the same problem with garbled Pingbacks to yourself. I usually edit those to just say Trackback, but other times it works perfectly.